[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type of digitizing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> One thing related to this I've always wondered. For instance, an old piano
recording, a great
> performance but a crapola 78 recording. Why couldn't modern MIDI software
recreate all the subtle
> attack, decay, rhythmic eccentricities, etc that make the performance unique
and then play it back
> on a good if not fantastic sounding MIDI Yamaha grand piano, for example? Not
sure if this is doable
> to the level of precision I'd want, but it's an interesting thing. Perhaps one
day, all low-fidelity
> recordings of great musical merit can be recreated in high fidelity. Then
again, perhaps not?
The relevant question here is this: "Would a digitally "recreated" recording
be the equivalent of the original recording (whether or not a commercially
And, if so, how many differences would/could/should be allowed between
the original and the "re-creation?"
Finally, the reproduction of "all the subtle [items]...that make the
performance unique" would, it seems, have to be delegated to a human.
To do this digitally, we would have to be able to define in digital
terms exactly what was in question...and how it would appear in terms
of a waveform or digital representation!
Now...IF we don't blow ourselves, and the planet, into radioactive
smithareens in the near future...it is quite possible that we will
see CPU speeds, storage, etc. that will enable us to digitally
analyze sound files and establish the effect of various alterations
at the single-byte (or bit) level. This would enable us to create
things like "Bix Plays the Beatles' Hits" or "Caruso Sings <modern
piece of choice> In Full-Fidelity Stereo!"
One never knows, do one...
Steven C. Barr